INTERVIEW Longer maternal leave won't help boost Korea's plummeting birthrate

Newborn babies are lying in a nursery at a postpartum care center in Anyang, Gyeonggi Province, July 27. According to Statistics Korea, the number of births in May decreased by 5.3 percent from the same month last year, totaling 18,988. This is the lowest figure since the institution began compiling the data in 1981. Newsis

“Korea is so screwed. Wow!”

This is what Joan Williams, an emeritus professor at UC San Francisco School of Law, exclaimed after being informed of Korea’s 2022 fertility rate ― 0.78 per woman.

“I’ve never heard of such a low fertility rate,” she was quoted as saying in a documentary made by Korea’s Educational Broadcasting System (EBS). Her astonished expression and voice became a meme circulating in Korean social media.

The country keeps setting new records for the world’s lowest fertility rate, despite the government investing $200 billion over 16 years to encourage women to have children. At the current rate, 40.1 percent of the total population will be older than 65 by 2050.

Desperately attempting to bolster the birthrate, politicians have been pledging constantly to expand the period of maternal leave and guarantee paternal leave whenever the general election arrives. The Yoon Suk Yeol government also plans to extend guaranteed maternal leave from one year to a year and a half.

However, according to Pauline Grosjean, an economics professor at the University of New South Wales in Australia, such measures don’t address the fundamental reasons why women decide not to give birth.

Pauline Grosjean, an economics professor at the University of New South Wales / Courtesy of Pauline Grosjean

“Maternal leave undoubtedly has a positive effect in enabling women to return to their professional lives after childbirth. However, it’s not the most effective tool for instigating this societal change,” Grosjean said during a recent online interview with The Korea Times.

“When women opt for maternity leave, it interrupts their career trajectory, potentially causing them to miss out on opportunities, especially promotions. The adverse effects become even more pronounced the longer the leave and if the woman was on track for promotion before taking it,” the professor continued.

“One-year maternity leave sounds good for some, but it’s not good for everybody. For instance, if you have a clerical job, you can leave for a year, and you don’t get to lose your human capital. However, if you do a specialized job or high-ranking job, taking one year off is huge. Trading your skills for a long maternity is not the option.”

As an expert who has devoted significant time to researching gender norms and their role in economic development, Grosjean said the more pressing problem is rooted in “unequal structure.” In her book, she terms this phenomenon “Patriarcapitalisme” (patriarchal capitalism), seeing it as an inevitable outcome of capitalism developing within a patriarchal society.

For instance, female workers with newborns often find it inevitable to seek a workplace with a flexible schedule or to reduce their working hours, particularly when they don't have external support for child-rearing. Such career interruptions diminish women's competitiveness in the job market.

This is especially true for "greedy jobs" ― as this year's Nobel Prize winner in Economics, Claudia Goldin, suggests. These roles demand considerable time flexibility and expect individuals to prioritize work in exchange for high salaries and elevated social positions. Consequently, these high-stress, well-paying positions drive the other parent to be more available at home, and this role often falls to women.

“Some say that women now can do any job they want, and they can have any education they want. And it’s true most of the time. But as long as there are social expectations as a mom, it’s going to be a hindrance,” Grosjean said.

gettyimagesbank

This sentiment appears to be prevalent among Korean women as well. In June, a survey conducted by Shinhan Life revealed that 34.3 percent of men and women aged 25 to 39 have no intention of having children. The primary reason women cited was the demanding social environment of balancing work with child care, while men pointed out the excessive child care and education costs.

The declining interest in child-rearing is concerning due to its potential impact on the economy. An increasing ratio of elderly dependents to the working-age population will escalate social expenditures and welfare costs, putting pressure on the national budget. Some studies even suggest that a 1 percent decline in the working-age population might lead to a 0.59 percent reduction in the gross domestic product.

Grosjean noted that gender norms are key drivers of economic development, even though they are slow to change. "If you keep half of your labor force at home, we all know the results will not end up good. Putting more women in the labor force is a good idea because it increases the active labor force for the same number of old people that you need to feed," she said.

"I also do think that this structure also puts men under pressure, because they have to generate all the income. And sometimes this can generate very unequal situations at home because men can use their economic power to oppress their wives."

Then, what would be the most effective policy that serves dual purposes?

Grosjean believes the solution lies in expanding public child care. "Helping mothers balance their lives and roles at work and home can be more important than the length or allocation of parental leave."

Still, it would be more beneficial for everyone to head home earlier to tuck in the child than to work through the night.

"You are talking about 52 working hours per week (at its maximum) and wonder why women don't have babies?" she said. "Who would dare to have a baby in such a situation?"